Daily Prayer

Monday, 30 March 2009

Paul writes – In addition to a couple of interesting business books, I’m reading a fascinating book of Stanley Hauerwas’ ecclesiology (i.e. his thinking in relation to “church”). It started out as John Thomson’s PhD and is titled The Ecclesiology of Stanley Hauerwas: A Christian Theology of Liberation(2003). Thankfully I have a good friend who was able to loan me a copy because it’s a pretty expensive book (limited audience and thus print run). I’m of the opinion that Hauerwas is an extremely important voice (but little understood) in relation to the current missiological / ecclesiological conversation, though he doesn’t appear in the footnotes / endnotes of the many books being published at the moment under the “emerging church” / “fresh expressions” umbrella. I’m finding myself reading him more and more, though I must confess I’m not always understanding what he’s saying; but I am willing to persevere in the interest of broadening and deepening both my theological understanding and practice…

For Hauerwas the churches call is to embody and enact (in the lives of real people in their ordinary and everyday lives) a particular narrative (one centered on the cross) in a particular context. For Hauerwas the test of the Christian story is not disembodied doctrine and proposition (the rational) but is instead seen and experienced in the sort of people (and mission) it shapes (i.e. incarnational). “…For Hauerwas, a tangible and trained character rather than theoretical belief is the sign of the church, for it is the story of the love of God in Christ crucified that we must be trained in…” The Christian priority “must be to attend to the substantive stories of the faith”.

"Saints cannot exist without a community, as they require, like all of us, nurturance by a people who, while often unfaithful, preserve the habits necessary to learn the story of God." We form character in community and relationship.

The key question for Hauerwas is therefore: “What kind of community must the church be in order to rightly tell the stories of God?”

Thomson’s book is very well written and wonderfully distills Hauerwas’ thinking, in conversation with a number of other (critically engaged) influences including Karl Barth, Reinhold Niebuhr and John Howard Yoder.

Paul writes – a quote Ian Mobsby has used a few times recently is the following one from theologian Miroslav Volf.

“A participative model of the church requires more than just values and practices that correspond to participative institutions. The church is not first of all a realm of moral purposes; it is the anticipation, constituted by the presence of the Spirit of God, of the eschatological gathering of the entire people of God in communion with the triune God. Hence the church needs the vivifying presence of the Spirit, and without this presence, even a church with a decentralised participative structure and culture will become sterile, and perhaps more sterile even than a hierarchical church. For it will have to operate with more subtle and open forms of coercion. Successful participative church life must be sustained by deep spirituality. Only the person who lives from the Spirit of communion (2 Cor. 13:13) can participate authentically in the life of the ecclesial community.”

For some reason my mind went to somethingRowan Williams said of poet/priest George Herbert. He said “that within his faith he embraced “emotional ambiguity and doubt”, but did so “on the basis of a deep and sophisticated doctrinal conviction.” While not saying the same thing as Volf; as I held the two statements in tension one to the other I was again struck by the importance of depth. There is a real need for the development and nourishment of the deep places; a need for real depth (and meaning) in our lives. This need seems all the more pressing in a world that’s low on costly commitment, and major’s in living on the surface of things and on the superficial and the illusory, while reducing “meaning” to consumption – to what we consume.

Genuine participative community emerges out of the deep places of our lives; out of the deep questions of what it means to be human in relation to the “other”. Genuine participative community, as Bonhoeffer recognised, does not emerge out of a love of community. But rather, it emerges out of the love we have for each other. We don’t ‘consume’ the other in order to meet our own needs. Our relationships are centred on mutuality. Charles Ringma (reflecting on Bonhoeffer) writes:

“…Where the church functions as a community – based on mutual care and [shared] responsibility – it’s life is sustained through mutual relationships, with each member playing part [thus the need for a “deep spirituality”]. There is a great dynamism, as well as a great vulnerability, in being church this way. That is why we tend to opt for church as institution rather than that of community. The value of church as community is that because each person must play a part, each person can also grow in the use of their particular gifts, talents and qualities…”

Saturday, 28 March 2009

Paul writes – Have spent some very useful time with virtual friend Ian Mobsby over the last couple of days. Another friendship moves from being “virtual” to “incarnational”. I’ve really appreciated listening to (and engaging with) the MOOT story in my local context. Have also really valued to way these conversations and workshops have built, with an Anglican flvour, on great work done by Steve Taylor in Hamilton 2007/08. There’s something really rich and nourishing about being with people who share passions, dreams, and language. Good too to include four locals in the local conversation(s).

Here’s a quote from Graham Cray I’ve been sitting with for the last couple of days:

“…Postmodern people are more likely to come to faith throughexperience which then leads to understanding rather than [to faith] through prior intellectual assent. But one of the tragedies of today is that some elements of the church are now so firmly secularized in their disbelief in the supernatural that they have nothing to say to a culture which increasingly takes spirituality and the supernatural for granted.”

Thursday, 26 March 2009

Paul writes – Wendell Berry and the Cultivation of Life (this link includes a PDF excerpt) is now a book I’m going to pull off my shelf in order to read chapter 9 “Bounded Hope in the Household and House of God” (note, this is the correct title and differs from that quoted below). Eugene Peterson has long been a fan of Wendell Berry and his thinking in relation to “place”, “rootedness” and pastoral work.

Here's what he says: "...Everytime he [Berry] writes "farm" I substitute "parish" or "congregations". It works everytime. I have learned more usable pastoral theology from this farmer than from all my academic professors."

I’ve too have long appreciated Berry (because of Peterson’s introduction in the early 90's), but like McKibben (below) l too have wondered what Berry’s commitment might look like in a context far removed from an “agrarian countryside”, e.g. the suburbs, or small town New Zealand.

Below is an excerpt from a recent review by Bill McKibben. You can read his fully review here.

“...Bonzo and Stevens, professors at Cornerstone University, answer a question that's long troubled me: What can this commitment to place and community mean for those not living in an agrarian countryside? Are there institutions that can serve as substitutes? The authors think so: "the flourishing of placed and peopled churches within local cultures."

By flourishing, they mean the opposite of the wild growth of placeless megachurches. They mean churches like the ones they belong to, ones rooted in particular spots for long periods, measuring faithfulness not by membership size but by their very rootedness and deep work. They suggest we name churches once more for places, not abstractions...

But the real power of their thinking is for those churches we have long thought in decline. Their chapter "Household and House of God" contains some of the most hopeful pages on the future of local churches I've read in years.”

That said; I wouldn’t want to suggest that “decline” (which can means lots of things) is acceptable in and of itself. I well imagine some congregations sitting back and resisting change for the sake of life. I have in mind congregations that continue (in the face of decline and disconnection from local context, changing demographics etc) to do what they’ve always been doing without subjecting themselves to critique or being accountable for the cultivation of life and the kinds of changes that permission and encourage life and flourishing.

As I wrote this I was also thinking of a recent post on a spirituality of change by Steve Taylor, and this reflection (which names some important dynamics. It’s written by Nadia Bolz-Webber and titled “My Definition of Emerging Church”).

“...The central place of praxis, of action in tandem with theory, has been central to the best urban ministry for some time, and its centrality was brought out strongly in some words in Stanley Evans's The Church in the Back Streets in 1962:

Supremely . . . there is only one way in which the church in the back streets, as, of course, anywhere else, can proclaim the Gospel effectively, and that is by action. The great mass of people have a very shrewd idea of what Christianity professes; but they have an equally shrewd idea that the practice of the Church in no way corresponds to these professions. . .They are not going to be converted by a church which is not visibly trying to live out its professing. This means more than a practical demonstration that the relationships between people in the Church are on a Christian basis, although that is vital; it means a perpetual demonstration that the local church is so concerned about the people of the district that it is prepared to take any action that is necessary to help them, and this means everything from street crossings and housing and race relations to hydrogen bombs. No people who are really adult are going to be persuaded to come to church and mutter prayers about the Church Militant when they know well that the one thing the Church fears more than it fears the devil is any kind of militancy. Militancy is not respectable. The Church Respectable can do many things, but it cannot convert (Evans 1962: 35-6).

While the situation in 2006 is vastly different from that of 1962, [Leech believes that] his words abide.”

It’s an interesting paper; however, one of the real challenges is reading this kind of overview in the context of suburbia. In urban / inner city contexts it seems to me that the needs are obvious – they’re visible. It has always struck me that it’s easy to find ones way into the narratives, experiences, and effects of poor housing (and homelessness), drugs, alcohol etc. It’s easy to see the missional possibilities, and a lot of energy and creativity is invested in inner city and urban mission.

On the other hand the “obvious” missional needs and opportunities to join in on what God is doing are less obvious in the suburbs. There’s a characteristic invisibility. Needs, pain, brokenness, quiet desperation etc lie below the surface. An absence of “third spaces” compounds the problem and makes it difficult to build the kinds of relationships and trust needed to “listen people into speech” and to discern the possibilities for healing, shalom, wholeness, and liberation. I’d love to see the kinds of resources, experiences, praxis etc of urban mission re-contextualised in suburbia; recognising in that journey that suburbia has a soul too – human beings live in suburbia! Mission and theological action-reflection-action can be done in the suburbs. We just need more examples, more stories to stir our imagination and creativity. Kenneth Leech, William Stringfellow, Simon Holt, and others are helping frame the conversation, but I’m looking for suburban practitioners too, e.g. suburban monastic’s etc.

Monday, 23 March 2009

Paul writes - Michelle Boorstein, a Washington Post Staff Writer, pens an article on the Church of Our Saviour ( Washington D.C.) and 91-year old Gordon Cosby’s final sermon amongst the Church he drew around the good news of Jesus of Nazareth, discipleship and mission.

“…The uncertainty set the tone Dec. 28 as Gordon Cosby, 91, the group's visionary founder, gave his final sermon at the church's stately headquarters, at 2025 Massachusetts Ave. NW, which the group has decided to sell…

…He and his wife, Mary, began to craft an unusual church structure: Members had to commit to an inward journey of daily quiet prayer, meditation and courses on Christianity as well as an outward journey of social justice work. People would be held accountable by working in small groups…

"We've got to move from believing so deeply to doing," he preached. "We've got to keep in mind the discrepancy between belief and embodiment."…”

You can read the whole article here. This church is an inspiration to me. I’m very grateful for its innovativeness and the example it has set. Thanks too to Sara Jane for bringing the article to my attention.

Saturday, 21 March 2009

Paul writes – Ian Mobsby offers some reflection on his time in Australia

. He’s now in NZ. Can’t say I disagree with his reflections at all. Pretty fair description of the challenges we face in reengaging culture, in building relationship with spiritual seekers, and in reconnecting in meaningful ways with church alumni.

In terms of my own experiences outside of church contexts and my own context I’d have to say Ian’s points below offer some significant challenges around “listening in context” (when work means you are seldom in your home context (i.e. the town you live in), and finding other enthusiasts (in your context) that are grappling with the issues you’re grappling with and dreaming similar dreams, whilst being the kinds of people you can build relational depth with.

Here are some of Ian’s thoughts on pioneering “start ups”. You can read his whole post here.

“…Below is a list I think of the essential focus for these new pioneering start up forms of projects which we hope will birth eventually, contextual and mature expressions of church:

1.Starting project needs to relate to a real collective local need - so time for listening is essential. This listening may require you to walk regularly around the suggested area of the project, get to know people, hear their stories, and talk to people in bars and cafes. Time for proper listening is vital.

2.When starting a project - where it happens is important - consider creating a hub in the local community and not to using church buildings for the sake of ease. Remember that many who you are seeking to reach will be using the internet - so use the internet to help build connections with those you are not in relationship with.

3.Build a team of enthusiasts - a commitment to relationality is again crucial.

4.Develop the project so that it continues to meet the need and we hope develop some form of community.

5.As issues relating to spirituality and the Christian faith emerge (and they will), you will need to consider different ways of enabling learning through a variety of creative approaches, and you will also need to find a way of articulating the faith in the language of that context. A great tip at this stage is to ‘give on a needs basis’. No force feeding - exploring the faith in the context of people’s interests…”

Thursday, 19 March 2009

Paul writes – More from Andrew Perriman, who (interestingly) reflects on a series of reflections by Ed Stetzer on the “meanings of missional”:

“…Reading Ed Stetzer's reflections on the 'meanings of missional' from a year or so back provoked a familiar sense of bewilderment. How is it that five lengthy posts on the meaning of such terms as 'missional' and missio dei, plus a large number of appended comments from leading missional thinkers, can offer no more than the occasional passing reference to the biblical narrative? Why do missiologists so often at least appear to take scripture for granted? It seems to me that the idea of mission in the New Testament is not nearly as straightforward as we imagine it to be. The so-called 'great commission' is a good example…” (Emphasis, mine).